Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Procedia CIRP 72 (2018) 1160–1165
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia

51st CIRP Conference on Manufacturing Systems

A conceptual lean implementation framework based on change

management theory
Mohammed AlManeia, Konstantinos Salonitisa,*, Christos Tsinopoulosb
a
Manufacturing, Cranfield University, Cranfield, MK43 0AL, UK
b
Bussiness School, Durham University, Durham, DH1 3LE, UK

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 (0)1234 758344. E-mail address: [email protected]

Abstract

Over the last two decades, numerous studies have been presented on the drivers and barriers that companies face when they try to implement
lean. Such studies have mostly been based on conducting surveys through questionnaires and interviews, and have targeted specific industrial
sectors and / or geographic boundaries. For helping companies implement lean, a number of frameworks have been developed. Most of them
though, look like more as roadmaps, prescribing the sequence of the various lean tools that have to be adopted without considering the
complexity of the human factor. It comes thus as no surprise, that many companies have failed and were not able to reap the benefits of lean
manufacturing. In all literature reviewed, successful lean implementation is accompanied by a change in the way companies value the different
dimensions of work. One of the major challenges of lean implementation is guiding the change journey as detailed in the implementation plan.
Lean manufacturing requires change in structure, system, process, and employee behaviour. In the present paper, a conceptual framework based
on change management theory is proposed and discussed.

© 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 51st CIRP Conference on Manufacturing Systems.

Keywords: lean implementation; change management; lean maturity

1. Introduction AlManei et al. [2] discussed in detail the reasons why lean
initiatives fail. Through an extensive literature review, they
Lean manufacturing and management when successfully resulted that the common root causes that lead to lean
implemented can help organizations improve their processes, initiatives failure are related to: lack of supply chain
reduce and even eliminate waste. A number of lean integration, lack of leadership commitment, lack of employee
implementation frameworks have been presented in the past, involvement, poor understanding of lean tools and techniques
most of them starting with house of lean. Recent studies of the and finally objecting business systems. It is thus obvious that
authors summarized these frameworks [1, 2]. However, introducing lean in not a straight forward easy endeavor, and
although a number of companies have attempted to introduce there is a plethora of stakeholders (leadership, employees,
lean thinking, only few have had successful and sustainable customers, suppliers etc.) that need to be considered.
results. In the USA, a study undertaken by the Lean Enterprise On the other hand, lean can be considered as any other
Institute in 2004 [3] presented a survey of over 900 change introduced to an organization. And as such a number
executives, resulting that only 4% considered that their lean of resistance points need to be overcome, at the same time the
efforts were at an “advanced” stage, exhibiting high lean drivers for lean chance need to be reinforced. AlManei et al.
maturity. Such an advanced state means that their lean [2] conducted a force field analysis that is summarized in fig.
implementation had become the standard way of operating 1. This can serve as a starting point for comprehending the
internally and was being extended to their strategic suppliers. complexity of introducing lean.

2212-8271 © 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 51st CIRP Conference on Manufacturing Systems.
10.1016/j.procir.2018.03.141

This is a resupply of March 2023 as the template used in the publication of the original article contained errors. The content of the article has remained unaffected.
 Mohammed AlManei et al. / Procedia CIRP 72 (2018) 1160–1165 1161

[6] classified change based on the intended outcome

(transformational vs. small change) and as a function of the
change process (rapid vs. incremental) in order to assess the
ease and likelihood of achieving the change. Based on the
matrix shown Fig. 2, change can thus be characterized as
evolution (large scale change carried out over a long period of
time), revolution (again large scale change that however is
carried out in a very short period of time, usually as a result of
externally imposed changes), adaptation (a small scale change
that is brought about gradually) and finally a reconstruction (a
small scale change rapidly carried out). In a similar way, Huy
and Minzberg [7] classified organizational change as organic,
systematic and dramatic.

Fig. 1. Lean drivers and barriers – force field analysis (based on [2]).

In the present paper, a conceptual lean implementation Fig. 2. Types of change (based on [6]).
framework based on the most appropriate change
management model will be presented. For selecting the Alternatively, change can be categorised through the
change management model that is better suited for this study, closely related scope and scale of an initiative. The scale
the various change management theories are reviewed and defines ‘who’ or ‘what’ will be changed, whereas the scope is
discussed under the prism of lean manufacturing defined by the number of people affected. Increasing scale of
implementation. Then the conceptual framework is presented a change can be described as fine tuning, incremental
and discussed. adjustment, modular transformation and corporate
transformation [8]. Alongside this the scope can be
2. Change management literature review categorised into individual, group or whole organisation.
Alternatively, the view of categorising the change initiative
Change is identified as the behavioural shift of “the into three classifications which merge scale and scope offers
organization as a whole, from one being to another”. One the an alternative approach [9].
other hand management of change has been identified as “the 1. Transformational Change – Typically takes years.
process of continually renewing an organization’s direction, embarking on a change to improve customer satisfaction
structure, and capabilities to serve the ever-changing needs of 2. Bounded Change – Scope is more limited than
external and internal customers”. In general it can be stated transformational with clear boundaries.
that change in an organisation becomes necessary when the 3. Deliverable-led Change – More closely aligned with the
organisation is no longer aligned to its external environment description of a project, but can take from days to years.
and its survival is threatened [4]. However, organizations are
constantly faced with harsh competition, and therefore they Depending on who originates the change and how it is
are under pressure to adjust strategies, technology, processes introduced, change can be defined as “bottom-up” and “top-
etc. to survive. Change is a steady on-going process, and not down”. Obviously, the bottom-up change originates at the
an one-off situation. lower levels of an organization and the top-down change is
Change Management thus is the area of study that aims to driven by the senior levels. Both of these present specific
facilitate the transition of individuals, teams or the whole advantages and limitations. Bottom-up due to the fact that is
organization by managing them. The purpose is thus to lead designed by practitioners has credibility and can be more
and guide the process from the current state to the intended easily accepted by other practitioners. On the other hand
future state by managing and controlling the different though, it can take quite more time in order to be introduced
difficulties (especially the ones originating from the human and adopted across the organization, with not always
side) in order to overcome resistance [5]. predictable outcome. On the other hand, top-down change
can be considered to be more structured and systematic as the
2.1. Types of change whole organization is considered from the planning phase. It
involves usually consultation with the responsible for
Change can be classified based on a number of different implementing change. The key success factor is engaging
perspectives. Indicatively it can be characterised based on the practitioners, negotiating and agreeing the terms of change.
scale of change attempted to radical and incremental change, In the literature, there is a lot of reference to the externally
thus it ranges from the change of a single business process to initiated change, by for example national or international
the transformation of the whole organisation. Furthermore, policies and initiatives. It has been noted however, that this
change can be core or peripheral. Balogun and Hope Hailey type of change is more likely to be objected by the employees.

This is a resupply of March 2023 as the template used in the publication of the original article contained errors. The content of the article has remained unaffected.
 1162 Mohammed AlManei et al. / Procedia CIRP 72 (2018) 1160–1165

2.2. Coping with change and organization culture as planned model, composed of three phases, namely,
unfreeze, change and re-freeze. Within the unfreezing phase,
Any significant change involves uncertainty, ambiguity considered to be the more important, the focus is in
and anxiety to the individuals involved. Carnall studied the establishing the need for change, preparing the stakeholders,
adjustment to change and identified five main states of and setting the plan for change. Force field analysis, as
development: denial stage, defense stage, discarding stage, described previously, can help assess the possibility of
adaptation stage and internalization phase [10]. success of the upcoming change (for example if the factors
One of the literature review findings is that a key issue in supporting the change outweigh the factors against). The
successfully implementing change is a matter of successfully second stage, the change stage, is about implementing the
changing the organisational culture, so that on-going change planned change. This considered being the hardest phase, as a
becomes the accepted norm. However, it should be noted that lot of opposition to the change is expected and needs to be
culture is embedded in the history of the organisation and overcome. Finally, the third stage focuses in establishing
experiences of its members, structured and formulated stability once the changes have been made. The change
gradually over time, and thus it is not susceptible to rapid implemented is accepted by the organization, and the new
change. practices, procedures etc. are standardized and become the
Robbins and De Cenzo [11] identified a number of norm. This last phase is criticized nowadays, as due to the fast
characteristics of organisational culture that impact on pace, usually there is not enough time to standardize before
change, such as: the next change initiative unfreezes the current state.
• Professional identity Social process models of leading organisational change are
• Team vs. individual emphasis paying more attention to the human dimension. They focus
• People focus more on the social process of change. A well-known model
• Subunit integration for the leadership of processes is provided by Kotter [14] and
• Control was based on research on change in a wide range of
• Risk and innovation organisations. His model is composed of eight steps for
• Conflict and different views leading change. It highlights areas where significant
• Means-ends orientation and advantages for change management can be seen. Steps 3 and
• External focus. 4 describe how creating and communicating a vision is
essential, the benefits of which are increasing motivation of
2.3. Models of leading change employees, aligned improvement projects and freeing up
resources to work on the transformation process. A lack of
The models of leading change are classified into two major employee engagement in change initiatives is often cited as
groups, the rational ones and the social process ones. Rational reason why lean projects fail. Kotter updated the eight-step
models are considered as more traditional; their governing model in 2012 [15] where the eight steps became eight
assumption is that the organisation and the employees’ accelerators.
behaviour are ordered and controllable. Thus the leadership
and management of change can be thought as systematic and
logical process involving a number of steps as can be seen in
Fig. 3. Such an approach works relatively well for initiatives
that the change implemented is of relatively small scale and
the goals are clear and agreed.

Fig. 4. Kotter’s model for leading change [14]

Both Kotter and Lewin models are focused on the

organizational changes. There are other change models that
are focusing on individual change. Examples of such include
ADKAR [16] model and Covey’s 7 habits model [17].
ADKAR is a research-based, individual change model that
represents the five milestones an individual must achieve in
Fig. 3. Rational model of organisational changed (based on [12]). order to change successfully (1. Awareness of the need for
change, 2. Desire to support the change, 3. Knowledge of how
Another traditional model, based on the rational approach, to change, 4. Ability to demonstrate new skills and behaviours
was presented by Lewin [13]. He characterizes his approach and 5. Reinforcement to make the change stick). A potential

This is a resupply of March 2023 as the template used in the publication of the original article contained errors. The content of the article has remained unaffected.
 Mohammed AlManei et al. / Procedia CIRP 72 (2018) 1160–1165 1163

problem with this model is that focusing on an individual

often may not work in a hierarchy structure (which is the
typical management structure in many large organisations),
those on senior management posts have more influence and
final say on change direction.
Along with ADKAR and Lewis, “7 habits of highly
effective people” model presented by Stephen Covey [17]
focuses on an individual approach to change management
rather than organizational. However, the habits outlined are
valuable also to those within an organisation who are leading
or guiding change. The seven habits focus on personal change
and interacting with others. Given these habits are based on
becoming a highly effective person, it is unsurprising to find
that there are many synergies between this and the models Fig. 5. Change Theories Linked by Project Size
presented by Kotter which focus on change leadership.
Table 2. Traditional and complex adaptive system approaches to
The change management theories explored above have organisational change (based on [19]).
common themes (table 1). The literature reviewed repeated
many common themes, supporting arguments for their Traditional Complex adaptive systems
importance as a factor to consider when making change. This Few variables determine outcomes Innumerable variables determine
outcomes
also highlights potential gaps within each framework. For
instance, improving individual skills is overlooked by Kotter The whole is equal to the sum of The whole is different from the sum of
the parts the parts
when focussing on leading change. Yet many logical
Direction is determined by design Direction is determined by emergence
arguments are presented within the works of Lewin, Covey and the power of a few leaders and the participation of many people
and ADKAR which suggest this should be accounted for Individual and organisational Individual and organisational
when implementing a change process. behaviour is knowable, predictable behaviour is unknowable,
and controllable unpredictable and uncontrollable
Table 1. Common Individual Change Themes. Causality is linear – every effect Causality is mutual – every cause is
Change model can be traced to a specific cause also an effect, and every effect is also
a cause
Theme Kotter Lewin Covey ADKAR Relationships are directional Relationships are empowering
[14] [13] [17] [16]
All systems and organisations are Each system and organisation is
Communication X X essentially the same unique
Individual flexibility X X X Efficiency and reliability are Responsiveness to the environment is
measures of value the measure of value
Urgency / criticality X X
Decisions are based on facts and Decisions are based on tensions and
Personal drive X X X data patterns
Improving Individual Skills X X X Leaders are experts and authorities Leaders are facilitators and supporters
Strong team-working X X X
3. Proposed framework for lean implementation
Whilst many authors of change management theories do
not limit their theories to particular classifications of change, The literature review has shown that the link between the
it is possible to propose a logical suggestion for their organisational change management and the lean
suitability as shown in fig. 5. The works of Covey, ADKAR manufacturing implementation has not been discussed in
and Lewin focus on individual change and are therefore more detail. As it has been highlighted, change is not a one-off
aligned with the smaller scale/scope projects which will only project, but rather a continuous process with impact both on
impact smaller numbers of people. In focussing on the processes and people. In order to successfully implement any
leadership of change, Kotter’s eight steps more closely aligns change project (such as lean implementation), the business
with larger scale changes which have the potential to impact a strategy needs to be aligned with the personal goals and
large number of people. The principles outlined with the eight objectives. This can be achieved by practicing change
steps can also be used within project orientated (bounded) management. As was highlighted in the previous sections, the
changes which can affect a team of people. A number of these lean implementation is accompanied by a change in the way
smaller projects may make up a major change initiative, for the company values the different dimensions of work. One of
which the leadership focus of the eight steps is ideally suited. the major challenges of lean implementation is guiding the
More recent approaches draw on ideas from chaos and change journey as detailed in the implementation plan. This is
complexity theory [18]. In this case, organisations are because lean manufacturing requires change in structure,
understood as dynamic entities and operate as complex system, process, and employee behaviour.
adaptive systems. Change is achieved through learning, The literature review on change management helped
testing out new ideas, evolution and adaptation. Olson and construct a number of questions with regards the
Eoyang [19] compared traditional and complex adaptive implementation of the change management programme. These
system models of the change process as shown in Table 2. questions can be summarized into:

This is a resupply of March 2023 as the template used in the publication of the original article contained errors. The content of the article has remained unaffected.
 1164 Mohammed AlManei et al. / Procedia CIRP 72 (2018) 1160–1165

• Is lean transformation a rapid or an incremental change? change, which has shown it success in a number of studies in
• What will be the outcome of the change, a “readjustment” the past, will be the basis for the proposed framework.
or a “transformation”? Kotter’s model is characterized as a social model and as such
• How will the employees cope with the change? fits better to the type of the change. The basic assumption of
• Which model would be more appropriate for leading the the rational models that the organisation and the employees’
change? behaviour are ordered and controllable is not valid in the case
• What lessons can be learnt from the reported failed change of lean manufacturing change. As shown in the literature
initiatives? review change brings uncertainties and disadvantages as well
as benefits, and may give rise to resistance by those
In order to answer these questions, the nature of the committed to existing methods and practices.
proposed change must be understood and comprehended. A Based on the analysis, a number of key principles of
company that is embarking in a change programme for change management can be applied to lean transformation.
applying lean principles is said to be going through a lean These can be summarized into:
transformation. • Strategic Alignment
It is clear from the literature review results, that a lean • Management Commitment
transformation involves changing the culture of the company. • Sense of Urgency
Besides the obvious implementation of tools and techniques • Stakeholder Involvement
for eliminating waste in the production (equipment and • Organizational Structure
processes) it requires a radical change in the way the company • Goals and Objectives
handles the relationships with customers and suppliers. • Transformation Plan
Therefore, such a change cannot be considered a rapid • Monitoring and Nurturing
transformation, as considerable time is required for altering
the culture. Thus, the change is considered an “incremental” Therefore, the Kotter’s model for leading change was
one. Furthermore, the size of the change is such that cannot mapped to a lean transformation initiative as can be seen in
be considered a readjustment. Based thus on the classification Fig. 6. The eight steps of Kotter’s model are grouped into
of change, the change is considered to be “evolution”, i.e. a three main classes as shown. Steps 1 to 3 enable the creation
large scale change that will be carried out over a long period of the necessary climate for change. This can be considered
of time. the most critical stage, as the final success of the lean
Based on the discussion of the various models of leading implementation depends largely on that. In Fig. 6, specific
change, it was decided that the Kotter’s model for leading tools that have been already tried for the lean implementation

Fig. 6. Proposed framework for implementing lean manufacturing.

This is a resupply of March 2023 as the template used in the publication of the original article contained errors. The content of the article has remained unaffected.
 Mohammed AlManei et al. / Procedia CIRP 72 (2018) 1160–1165 1165

are mapped into these steps and structured. As was Gemba” initiatives and SOPs. All these tools can be
highlighted in the literature review [1, 2, 20] leadership and implemented during stage 6 of the conceptual framework in
management commitment are the key factors for the lean order to lead to quick wins. In a study presented by Salonitis
manufacturing implementation. The change to lean and Tsinopoulos [1] these specific tools were the ones
manufacturing must be driven by strong leadership. This is identified as the more mature ones for companies that have
why it is integrated in the first phases of the change recently embarked into their lean journey. The degree of
management programme. Additionally, the engagement of the understanding of lean tools can be also used in order to assign
workforce is critical, and thus need to be considered from the these into stages 6 and 7 of the conceptual framework.
very first stages. A generic “lean implementation curve” can been suggested
The next steps (4 to 6) deal with the engagement and with the relevant tools ordered in the sequence to be applied.
enabling within the organization. That is why the focus is on A proposal of such curve is shown in fig. 7, mapping most of
the communication within the organization, the preparation of the lean tools to an implementation timeframe. The
the taskforce through training and enabling them to work on classification of these tools as per “house of lean” is also color
their projects through ownership and responsibility of the coded. It should be noted that such a timeframe needs to be
projects. Towards the final step of this stage, implementation tailored to the needs and lean maturity of the organization to
of simple projects that can have easy wins (harvest the low be introduced to.
hanging fruits) can radically increase the commitment of both
the management and the workforce into the lean 5. Conclusions
implementation change programme.
Final steps 7 and 8 builds up on the early wins for the full In the present paper, a conceptual framework for the
deployment of lean tools and methods, and most importantly implementation of lean manufacturing based on change
sustaining the change and the lean thinking. management is proposed. For deciding which change
management model to be used, the available models presented
were reviewed. Furthermore, the conceptual framework was
complemented by a lean tools roadmap, highlighting the
sequence of lean tools to be implemented. The next step to
this study will be the validation of both the framework and the
lean tools roadmap in real manufacturing organizations.

References

[1] Salonitis K, Tsinopoulos C. Drivers and Barriers of Lean Implementation in

the Greek Manufacturing Sector. Procedia CIPR, 2016;57:189-194
[2] AlManei M, Salonitis K, Xu Y. Lean implementation frameworks: the
challenges for SMEs. Procedia CIRP, 2017;63:750-755
[3] Lean Enterprise Institute (2004) www.lean.org
[4] Price ADF, Chahal K. A strategic framework for change management.
Construction Management and Economics 2006;24:237-251.
[5] Goff L. Managing at wrap speed. Computerworld 1994;28/43:93
[6] Balogun J, Hope Hailey V. Exploring Strategic Change. 2008; 3rd ed. Pearson
Ed.
Fig. 7. Lean tools roadmap [7] Huy QN, Mintzberg H. Rhythm of Change. MIT Sloan Management review,
2003.
[8] Hughes M. Change management. 2006; London: Chartered Institute of
Personnel and Development.
4. Lean tools roadmap [9] Newton R. Change Management: Financial Times Briefing. 2011; Pearson Ed.
[10] Carnall C. Managing Change in Organizations. 2007; 5th ed.; Pearson Ed.
[11] Robbins S, De Cenzo D. Fundamentals of Management. 2008; 6th ed.
The conceptual framework proposed (fig. 6) highlights the Pearson Ed.
key milestones in the lean journey. However, this does not [12] Olson E, Eoyang G. Facilitating Organizational Change. 2001; an Francisco:
provide details on the lean tools to be introduced, and focuses Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer.
more on the surpassing the change objections within the [13] Lewin K. Frontiers of Group Dynamics. Human Relations 1947;1:5-41
[14] Kotter J. Leading Change. 1996;Boston: Harvard Business School Press
organization. The conceptual framework thus needs to be [15] Kotter J. Accelerate!. Harvard Business Review. 2012. Available at:
complemented by a lean tools / methods roadmap. The https://hbr.org/2012/11/accelerate
various tools will be implemented in steps 5, 6 and 7 of the [16] Prosci.com. (n.d.). ADKAR Model | Prosci. [online] Available at:
conceptual framework, although the learning of such tools can https://www.prosci.com/adkar
be expected to be initiated earlier. [17] Covey S. The 7 habits of highly effective people. 2004; Simon & Schuster.
[18] Stacey R. Complexity and Organizational Reality. 2010; 2nd ed., Routledge
For selecting which tools to use first, the “house of lean” [19] Olson E, Eoyang G. Facilitating Organizational Change. 2001;San Francisco:
can be used. Starting with the foundations of the “house”, the Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer.
focus should be in securing stability and setting up standards. [20] Alefari M, Salonitis K, Xu Y. The role of leadership in implementing lean
Tools usually used during this phase include 5S, establishing manufacturing. Procedia CIRP, 2017;63:756 – 761.
TPM, visual aids, problem solving thinking, A3, “go to

This is a resupply of March 2023 as the template used in the publication of the original article contained errors. The content of the article has remained unaffected.